Paper detail

Uncertainty quantification of thermal conductivities from equilibrium molecular dynamics simulations

Equilibrium molecular dynamics (EMD) simulations along with the Green-Kubo formula have been widely used to calculate lattice thermal conductivities. Previous studies, however, focused primarily on the calculated thermal conductivities, with the uncertainty of the thermal conductivities remaining poorly understood. In this paper, we study the quantification of the uncertainty by using solid argon, silicon, and germanium as model material systems, and examine the origin of the observed uncertainty. We find that the uncertainty increases with the upper limit of the correlation time, $t_{\text{corre, UL}}$, and decreases with the total simulation time, $t_{\text{total}}$, whereas the velocity initialization seed, simulation domain size, temperature, and type of material have minimal effects. The relative uncertainties of the thermal conductivities for solid argon, silicon, and germanium under different simulation conditions all follow a similar trend, which can be fit with a "universal" square-root relation, as $σ_{k_x}/k_{x, \text{ave}} = 2(t_{\text{total}}/t_{\text{corre, UL}})^{-0.5}$. We have also conducted statistical analysis of the EMD-predicted thermal conductivities and derived a formula that correlates the relative error bound ($Q$), confidence level ($P$), $t_{\text{corre, UL}}$, $t_{\text{total}}$, and number of independent simulations ($N$). We recommend choosing $t_{\text{corre, UL}}$ to be 5-10 times the effective phonon relaxation time, $τ_{\text{eff}}$, and choosing $t_{\text{total}}$ and $N$ based on the desired relative error bound and confidence level. This study provides new insights into understanding the uncertainty of EMD-predicted thermal conductivities. It also provides a guideline for running EMD simulations to achieve a desired relative error bound with a desired confidence level and for reporting EMD-predicted thermal conductivities.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.